THIRD SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 36075/97 by Josef SIEGL against Austria

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section) , sitting on 13 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr W. Fuhrmann , Mr P. Kūris , Sir Nicolas Bratza , Mrs H.S. Greve , Mr K. Traja , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , judges , and Mrs S . Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 December 1996 and registered on 14 May 1997,

Having regard to the Section’s partial decision of 8 February 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a n Austrian national, living in Zaussenberg. In the proceedings before the Court he is represented by Mr E. Proksch, a lawyer practising in Vienna.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1983 agricultural land consolidation proceedings ( Zusammenlegungs-verfahren ), involving the property of the applicant’s mother, were instituted by the Lower Austria District Agricultural Authority ( Agrarbezirks-behörde ). After a hearing on 9 September 1983 the authority ordered the provisional transfer of the compensatory parcels ( Grundabfindungen ) on the basis of a draft consolidation scheme ( Neueinteilungsplan ).

As the applicant’s mother refused to pay the prescribed fees for these proceedings, the Di s trict Agricultural Authority issued a decree ordering her to pay fees which corr e sponded to the value of her land. The applicant’s mother appealed against this decision, but her appeal was dismissed by the Lower Austria Land Reform Board ( Landesagrarsenat ) on 8 October 1985. Her further appeal was dismissed by the Administr a tive Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) on 27 June 1989.

On 25 May 1985 the applicant’s mother appealed against the District Agricultural Authority’s failure to decide ( Devolutionsantrag ). On 1 September 1987 the Regional Land Reform Board dismissed the a p peal. The District Agricultural Authority issued the consolidation scheme on 7 October 1987.

The applicant’s mother appealed against the consolidation scheme on 1 December 1987 and on 13 December 1990 appealed against the Regional Land Reform Board’s failure to decide. The latter appeal was allowed on 27 February 1991 and the Supreme Land Reform Board ( Oberster Agrarsenat ), now competent, took evidence on 16 April 1991, and held a hearing on 5 June 1991. That same day the Supreme Board granted compensation for the difference in value of a compensatory parcel, but dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

The applicant’s mother then lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court ( Verfa s sungsgerichtshof ), which referred the case to the Administrative Court on 7 October 1991. The Administrative Court quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision for procedural errors on 19 September 1994. It noted, in particular, that the Supreme Board had not taken into consideration the expert opinion that the applicant’s mother had submitted to the agricultural authorities. When the applicant’s mother died, the applicant filed a declaration on 20 February 1995 stating that he wanted to pursue the proceedings as his mother’s legal successor.

On 1 March 1995 the Supreme Land Reform Board, differently composed, took into consideration the expert opinion at issue and granted co m pensation for a difference in value, but again dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed from this decision.

On 12 June 1995 the Constitutional Court referred the applicant’s appeal to the Administrative Court, which quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision for procedural errors on 29 October 1996. It noted that the Supreme Board had taken into consideration the expert opinion, but had not given the applicant the opportunity to comment. Therefore the Supreme Board had violated the applicant’s right to be heard.

On 7 May 1997 the Supreme Land Reform Board, having held a hearing at which it heard the rapporteur ( Berichterstatter ) and the applicant, partly granted the appeal and granted a higher amount of compensation for the difference in value of a compensatory parcel. The applicant appealed from this decision complaining that the other l and-owners concerned had not been summoned and there had, thus, not been a multiparty-procedure. Moreover, he claimed that the Supreme Board had wrongly assessed the expert opinion.

On 30 September 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case and transferred it to the Administrative Court.

On 18 February 1999 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on 10 March 1999.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.

The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of his property rights due to the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complains about the length of proceedings relating to the land consolidation proceedings concerning plots of land he inherited from his mother.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant ’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of the application is required.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President